S K LAKHINA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 3rd December, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), directing framing of charges under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) After the order directing framing of charge, charges were framed against the accused persons. The Petitioners/accused persons during the pendency of these Revision Petitions, prayed for conversion of these Revision Petitions into Writ Petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India, in view of decision of this Court in Dharamvir Khattar vs. CBI. At the request, the Registry was directed to register and re-number these Revision Petitions as Writ Petitions (Crl.) under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the matters continued.

(3.) After amendment in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Revision Petition against framing of charge by Special Judge in Corruption Cases, was barred under Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court in Dharamvir Khattar Vs. CBI, 2009 4 AD(Del), after discussing numerous judgments of this Court and Apex Court had come to decision that order on framing of charge could not be reviewed u/s 19(3)(c) of P.C. Act. This Court re-affirmed this view in R.C. Sabharwal Vs. CBI & Ors., in Crl. Revision No. 293 of 2006, decided on 6th January, 2010. However, in view of the fact that a revision was not maintainable, petitioners got these Revision Petitions converted into Writ Petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India and contended that if revision was not maintainable, there was no bar on challenge being made to order of charge, under Article 227. In Dharamvir Khattar, this Court had observed that since no request has been made to the Court for converting the petition to under Article 227, challenge to the order on charge was not being considered under Article 227. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India thus was maintainable and these petitions should be entertained and the order passed on charge by learned trial court should be set aside.